Telangana High Court
WP/24312/2013 of SRI AHOK BABANI, HYD AND 2 OTHERS Vs COMMR, GHMC, HYD AND 2 OTHERS on 12 December 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO WRIT PETITION NO: 24312 OF 2013 Between 1. Sri Ahok Babani, S/o. Sri Bhagwandas
It
li
lt
il
I
I
I
I
i
I
J
I
I
I
.!
ii
I
;
litl
ti
ri
ti
i
!
i
,:
ii
:
r!
':
ii
ii
i
I
I
I
t
It
II
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
!
I
i
$
I
I
i
[ 348s I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA
AT HYDERABAD
(Special Original Jurisdiction)
FRIDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF DECEMBER
TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
WRIT PETITION NO: 24312 OF 2013
Between
1. Sri Ahok Babani, S/o. Sri Bhagwandas Babani, Aged 62 years, Occ Business, R/o.Flat No.302, Air Bus Apartment, Viftalwadi, Hyderabad. Rep by his G.P.A. Holder Sri Mohandas Babani, Petitioner No.2 herein.
2. Sri Mohandas Babani S/o Sri Bhagwandas Babani, Aged 69 years, Occ Business, R/o. 506, J.B.Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Vikram Babani S/o. Sri [Mohandas Babani, aged 33 years, Occ Business, R/o. 506, J.B.Apartments, Domalguda, Hyderabad.
1 .The G reater Hyderabad M u n ic, rril""rr"ration, Tank B und -o,a=:ra",r a"
rep. By its Commissioner.
2. The A3sistant City Planner, Circle No.8, Central Zone, Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Abids, Hyderabad.
3. Sri Gopaldas Bhagwandas S/o. late Sri Bhagwandas Girdar Das, Aged 54
years, Occ Advocate, R/o.4-3-339, Giriraj Lane, Bank Street, Hyderabad.
...RESPONDENTS
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ Order or direction in the nature of Mandamus or otheruuise declaring the action of the official respondents in issuing notice dated 7.8.2013
under Sec. 459 of GHMC is a colurable exercise of power, illegal, against principles of natural justice and non est in law and consequently set aside the
l.A. NO: 1 OF 2013(WPMP. NO: 29920 OF 2013)
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to i ..{ ,,i'
I ..| ;.
suspend the notice of the Official Respondents dated 7.8.2013 under Sec. 459 of GHMC Act pending disposal of this Writ Petition.
lA NO: 1 OF 2023
Petition under Section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to bring on record the prooosed party of the Petltioner No.4 as Petitioner No.4 being legal heir of deceased Petitioner No.1.
Counsel for the Petitioners: Ms. YOGITA PRAKASH FoR SRI M.pApA REDDY
counsel for the Respondent Nos.1 & 2: SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, sc FoR GHMC
Counsel for the Respondent No.3: -
The Court made the following: ORDER
- -..t:t r'
I
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AT
HYDERABAD
HON'BLE SRI IUSTICE SUDDALA CHALAPATHI RAO
DATE: 12.12.2025
Between:
Sri Ashok Babani and two others.
Petitioners
And
The Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Rep.by its Commissioner, Tank Bund, Hyderabad and two others.
.. .. Respondents
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER:
Heard. Ms. Yogita Prakash, learned counsel representing Mr. M.Papa Reddy, learned counsel for petitioners and Mr. M.Arun Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent Nos.]. and2. Z. The instant writ petition is filed challenging the action of the 2nd respondent in issuing notice No.302, 306 & 307 /4/ /Dilap/ ACP / TPS/C8/GHMC/2013 under Sections 459 ofthe GHMC Act,1955.
3. When the matter is taken up for hearing, leamed counsel for petitioners would submit that the owner i.e., unofficial respondent No.3, has deliberately collapsed the roof of the demised premises' However, in the counter-affidavit filed by the respondent Nos'1 \ \ I ,.
I I i and 2, it is stated that the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have demolished the roof of demised premises, where the petitioners are running their shop and the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners would also submit that onry the premises bearing Nos.4 -z-3ozand 303 have been demohshed, whire the premises bearing Nos.4-2-306 & 307 remain intact. However, in view of demolition the roof of demised premises, the notice issued under section 4s9 of GHMC Act, 1955 gets frustrar-ed arrd the petitioners have to invoke appropriate jurisdiction of the Court for redressar of their grievances and the cause in the writ petition does not survive and has become infrucfuous.
4. Accordingry, the writ petition is dismissed as inJructuous. The petitioners and the unofficial respondent are at likrerly to ventilate their grievances before the appropriate Court of law.
5. There shail be no order as to costs. pending miscelraneous applications if any shall stand closed. SD/-A.H.S. GOWRI SHANKAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR i T ,1 I * { .. \ I I I G; //TRUE COPY/
1. One CC to SRI M-PAPA REDDY, Advocate [OPUC]
2. One CC to SRI M.ARUN KUMAR, SC FOR GHMC [OPUC]
3. Two CD Copies SECTION OFFICER To PSK. BS \qr : 1.,"i:tii i.:
F CC TODAY HIGH COURT DATED:1211212025
ORDER
WP.No.24312 of 2013 % ,t u- s \\ * DISMISSING THE WRIT PETITION AS INFRUCTUOUS WITHOUT COSTS 6*{"L #., , .i:, '1